Social SAT To add ‘Adversity Score’ to Capture Social and Economic Background

Well OP, that fictional meritocracy where everyone gets in and gets off on their merits alone is still around...in fiction, where it's always been.

Here in reality, the world has never been that way, and especially with regards to education.

Yeah, the OP was hilariously naive. There's currently a massive scandal involving high profile celebrities dealing with this very issue. The system is already corrupt in favor of the wealthy. The wealthy kids have a long list of advantages over equally intelligent kids coming from a middle class or lower background.
 
On one hand, I’m sad because we’ve clearly failed to live up to the potential of our species. But on the other hand, now I’m a genius!
 
Sure...so what's the problem?

An adversity score assigned by the College Board is a better measure of that than relying on the ability of some kid to articulate the specific issues that are relevant. Maybe the kid wants to write about something other than their personal adversity.

These days, I find myself in a world where parents are spending hundreds of dollars a month on academic prep work for 6 year olds. :eek: Juxtaposed with a world where working mothers are struggling to pay the rent. The 6 year olds with prep work had damn well better outperform the kids who parents can't afford that stuff when both sets of kids turn 16

But the thing is that the kids with the prep work, they're not writing essays about how they've been in Kumon for a decade and have a private math tutor and a college consultant. They're writing about other stuff. And the kids who don't have that stuff probably don't even know that their competitors did. It has to be put in context.

We can't scream "educational meritocracy" while ignoring the economic equivalent of educational steroids.
The problem is the score is a seperate score that is sent along with the SAT score. So it's not very far fetched to see colleges sorting by adversity scores before they even look at the actual SAT score. It would actually make more sense to literally give them points on their test and keep it confidential as to how many adversity points they got.
 
I don't necessarily agree with these new standards, but stories like this, impress the hell out of me.

"Single mother of 5 passes bar."

https://q13fox.com/2018/11/01/single-mother-of-5-passes-bar-exam-achieves-lifelong-goal/

And this is kind of the crux. If you have a person who has had a hell of a tough go of things who manages to perform at par, or very, very close to it, with someone who has had a silver spoon up their arse and a helping hand every step of the way, who do you think is actually the more capable? It is sometimes about more than just the raw academic score - and a system of admittance should reflect that.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, the OP was hilariously naive. There's currently a massive scandal involving high profile celebrities dealing with this very issue. The system is already corrupt in favor of the wealthy. The wealthy kids have a long list of advantages over equally intelligent kids coming from a middle class or lower background.

Aside from that, before AA was even a thing, there was that whole state sponsored segregation issue.

I'm sure certain people loved the "meritocracy" when all the coloreds were excluded from applying. Real equal, real merit based.
 
Aside from that, before AA was even a thing, there was that whole state sponsored segregation issue.

I'm sure certain people loved the "meritocracy" when all the coloreds were excluded from applying. Real equal, real merit based.
You'd have a hard time finding anyone on this forum who was alive during that time.
 
Is needed if whites are to compete wiht Chinese and South East Asians in math, computer sciences, medical and dental school ... well pretty much any degree leading to a good job.
 
You don't know anyone who's 50?

<Huh2>
There may be a few individuals on this forum who are in their 50s. Of course if you're in your 50s it would have affected your schooling. You'd have to be pushing 70 for that to be true.
 
Wait, isn't this exactly what conservatives were lobbying before instead of affirmative action: a vetting system that takes into consideration metrics that are more accurate, particularized, and neutral than race?

Yes, if you score a 1400 after being born into abject poverty and having to walk to and from school and baby sit your younger siblings every night, that is much more impressive than if you attained a 1400 after being born into wealth and having private tutors and endless time and assistance with your studies.

And even then, this score doesn't seem to capture individuals' family history or circumstances but rather the SES of their neighborhood and high school.

So if you babysit your siblings, live in a single-parent household, but happen to live in the low-income apartment complex of an otherwise middle-class neighborhood, your adversity score might be the same as that of your stable, middle-class neighbors.
 
The problem is the score is a seperate score that is sent along with the SAT score. So it's not very far fetched to see colleges sorting by adversity scores before they even look at the actual SAT score. It would actually make more sense to literally give them points on their test and keep it confidential as to how many adversity points they got.
So what if they did sort by adversity scores? They're already doing it in many fashions. That's why they ask for so much personal information when you apply. So that they can approximate your personal circumstances.

And there's no point in giving points on the test because that completely obscures the point of the adversity issue. Which is to put the scale of adversity into context. Just assigning points to the test scores would hide strengths and weaknesses from the schools and from the students themselves. Additionally, it would throw off the percentiles.

It's much more practical to see 2 test scores and know that this score was achieved with an adversity level of 10 and that one had an adversity score of 5. Or that 2 students with similar adversity levels achieved significantly different scores.

I guess I'm confused about your specific concern. You appear to agree that there are different levels of adversity and that universities already seek out this information during the application process. Is it the idea of boiling it down to a number that bothers you or do you have an issue with the 15 variables that they're using?
 
...because those 14 things aren't arbitrary.

Person A, a single parent making $25k a year in a place where average 1-br rent is $500 and there are good schools, complimentary prep courses, and ample transportation access is different than

Person B, a parent of 5 making $25k a year in a place where average 1-br rent is $750 and there aren't good schools, buses, or accommodations.



You really couldn't concoct a more hilariously obtuse comment. The entire purpose of these metrics is to properly evaluate hard work versus preparatory privilege.
Even with preparatory privilege those students are still working hard to achieve their goals. Those students should not be punished because they had access to better preparation and tutoring.
 
There may be a few individuals on this forum who are in their 50s. Of course if you're in your 50s it would have affected your schooling. You'd have to be pushing 70 for that to be true.

We have states fighting Roe v. Wade to this very day, and it was decided in 1973...but you think school segregation went away overnight?

How dense are you?

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...ssippi-school-district-ordered-to-desegregate

After 50-Year Legal Struggle, Mississippi School District Ordered To Desegregate

And this isn't even an uncommon example.

<DisgustingHHH>
 
So what if they did sort by adversity scores? They're already doing it in many fashions. That's why they ask for so much personal information when you apply. So that they can approximate your personal circumstances.

And there's no point in giving points on the test because that completely obscures the point of the adversity issue. Which is to put the scale of adversity into context. Just assigning points to the test scores would hide strengths and weaknesses from the schools and from the students themselves. Additionally, it would throw off the percentiles.

It's much more practical to see 2 test scores and know that this score was achieved with an adversity level of 10 and that one had an adversity score of 5. Or that 2 students with similar adversity levels achieved significantly different scores.

I guess I'm confused about your specific concern. You appear to agree that there are different levels of adversity and that universities already seek out this information during the application process. Is it the idea of boiling it down to a number that bothers you or do you have an issue with the 15 variables that they're using?
I think it's most fair to sort by a raw score and accomplishments then drill down into personal circumstances. This goes the opposite and says we need this of this kind of people regardless of achievement and this many of Y, Etc
 
We have states fighting Roe v. Wade to this very day, and it was decided in 1973...but you think school segregation went away overnight?

How dense are you?

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...ssippi-school-district-ordered-to-desegregate

After 50-Year Legal Struggle, Mississippi School District Ordered To Desegregate

And this isn't even an uncommon example.

<DisgustingHHH>
Not really sure why you're even talking about race this is about "adversity" not race. Do you think white people can't face adversity?
 
And this is kind of the crux. If you have a person who has had a hell of a tough go of things who manages to perform at par, or very, very close to it, with someone who has had a silver spoon up their as and a helping hand every step of the way, who do you think is actually the more capable? It is sometimes about more than just the raw academic score - and a system of admittance should reflect that.

To visualize this:

Someone walking across a stage is ho hum.

Ryan Shazier walking across a stage is a miracle of modern medicine.

What's the difference? Shazier suffered a spinal injury and was never slated to walk again.

Nobody in their right mind would say "Oh, he's just doing what everyone else does, that's not impressive. I walk faster than him"! Well, nobody smart anyway.
 
Back
Top